The troubled series floundered in development hell for more than three years.

Share this story

Daveed Diggs and Jennifer Connelly star in Snowpiercer, TNT's reboot of the 2013 film by Bong Joon-ho.

It's been three long years, but TNT's much-anticipated series Snowpiercer—an adaptation of the critically acclaimed 2013 film by Oscar-nominated director Bong Joon-ho (Parasite)—is finally emerging from development hell and coming to television. The network just dropped a teaser trailer, and despite all the production drama, it looks like a promising fleshing-out of the original dystopian vision.

Bong Joon-ho's film itself is an adaptation of a 1982 French graphic novel Le Transperceneige, about remnants of humanity trying to survive an ice age inside a 1,001-car train. The director has said he was especially captivated by the "unique cinematic space of a train" as a futuristic Noah's ark. "Hundreds of metal pieces moving like a snake carrying people squirming inside gripped by heart," he said. "And the people inside were fighting against each other." There's also a viral outbreak that starts wiping out the passengers.

While the basic premise remained the same, Bong Joon-ho created a new narrative arc and fresh characters for his 2013 film. The train is run by a reclusive transportation magnate named Mr. Wilford, who has separated the passengers according to class and has a nefarious plan to ensure life on the train remains sustainable. It starred Chris Evans as revolutionary leader Curtis, with Tilda Swinton as second-in-command Minister Mason. Bong shot much of it on a specially constructed set: a train mounted on a giant gyroscopic gimbal, the better to mimic the movements of an actual train. Snowpiercer earned critical raves and went on to gross $86 million worldwide, against a roughly $40 million production budget.

The titular Snowpiercer is a giant train carrying the survivors of a climate apocalypse.

YouTube/TNT

Melanie is the Voice of the Train.

YouTube/TNT

Layton is asked to investigate a murder.

YouTube/TNT

The first-class passengers live in luxury.

YouTube/TNT

Indoctrinating kids into the train's social hierarchy starts early.

YouTube/TNT

Melanie checks in with the "nightclub" car.

YouTube/TNT

The cold can be deadly.

YouTube/TNT

Sending messages through pneumatic tubes!

YouTube/TNT

Fighting for freedom.

YouTube/TNT

A shadowy figure in the snow flurries.

YouTube/TNT

The train goes on. And on.

YouTube/TNT

TNT first ordered the TV pilot in 2017, tapping Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange) to direct and Josh Friedman (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) to pen the script. But the production ran into trouble the following year, when the network picked up the pilot to series but replaced Friedman as showrunner with Graeme Manson (Orphan Black). Derrickson departed the project in June 2018 over "creative differences" with Manson regarding requested reshoots. As Derrickson explained on Twitter:

The 72-page Snowpiercer TV pilot script by @Josh_Friedman is the best I've ever read. The feature-length pilot I made from that script may be my best work. The new showrunner has a radically different vision for the show. I am forgoing my option to direct the extreme reshoots.

TNT brought on James Hawes (Black Mirror, The Alienist) to complete the reshoots, which were extensive—almost no footage of the original pilot remains, further delaying the series. But the network was pleased with the results and ordered a second season last May, with Manson returning as show runner.

Set seven years after the climate catastrophe that produced the ice age, the series is essentially a reboot of the film, fleshed out into a full-length series. "That's one of the advantages of TV, you have time," series star Daveed Diggs (Hamilton, Blindspotting) told IGN in 2019. "So the politics that are hinted at in the film are explored in much more depth, and the mechanism of the train [is explored further]—just the little things that create a world."

Diggs plays Layton Well, a prisoner at the tail end of the train who spends much of his time sniffing Chronole (basically industrial waste) until he gets caught up in a revolutionary struggle against the imposed social hierarchy abroad the Snowpiercer. Jennifer Connelly (Alita: Battle Angel) co-stars as first-class passenger Melanie Cavill, who is the Voice of the Train, responsible for daily public announcements.

The show's large ensemble cast also includes Mickey Sumner (The Borgias, also daughter of musician Sting) as brakeman Bess Till, who stumbles upon a mystery that threatens the train's status quo. Bonus: Sean Bean (Game of Thrones S1) is listed as joining the cast for season two. Place your bets now on how long his character will survive.

The S1 teaser is short but packed with detail, opening with Diggs' voiceover declaring, "Only the visionary Mr. Wilford foresaw the future." We see Melanie receive a message from Wilford via pneumatic tube. "Snowpiercer is an ark," the message reads. "We'll ride out this hardship and outlive the ice." We get snippets of life aboard the train, including the opulent first-class accommodations and children in a classroom being indoctrinated, chanting praise to the great Mr. Wilford and "to the engine eternal!" The snowy shots of the train racing through a frozen landscape are gorgeous, and it looks like we'll definitely get a violent uprising of some sort as the narrative unfolds.

Snowpiercer debuts on TNT on May 31, 2020. And maybe someday we'll have the chance to see Friedman and Derrickson's unaired pilot, just for comparison.

The movie was so satisfying already, I'm guessing this show will feel drawn out and lower stakes comparatively. It's strange to see a "reimagining" of the original movie just 7 years after it came out.

I really enjoyed the movie, but that's because I can let things slide for a couple of hours and just have fun with it. A whole TV series though? Whew. A bit skeptical on this one. Perhaps they'll prove me wrong.

I enjoyed the movie. If I only I'd known I was fooling myself, and was tricked by my subconscious into liking it because it was French. But alas.

But enjoying it for what it was didn't include "wow, I really wish they'd remake this for TV". I can't imagine caring enough to watch. I mean, if everyone raves about it I won't refuse to put it in my list, but until then it's going into the instantly forgettable idea pile instead.

There are so many ideas out there that could have love poured into them, why do we have to constantly remake things that already exist instead?

That movie was pretty weak. Everyone pretends to like it because it was a french story. Maybe it will make more sense in TV form.

Yup. I never figured what people liked about this movie. It made very little sense.

As a pure exercise of visual art and storytelling, it's a fantastic work. The metaphorical progression from the bottom to top rung of their microcosmic society mirroring the revolutionary progression to the front of the train is an amazing reimagining of the French Revolution.

However, when you start trying to examine exactly how that whole place mechanically functioned for even a second, it deflates like an especially sad balloon. I don't see how a TV show could possibly fill out a season without being forced to confront that problem head-on. Without the relentless progressive pacing and tension of a good action movie, you just can't ignore how ridiculous the entire setting is. At that point why even bother? It just sounds so fucking dumb when you start trying to describe how an eternal train in the icy tundra functions much less sustains itself.

It's interesting that the song in the background is the one that Willy Wonka (the Gene Wilder version) sings as the kids enter the chocolate factory/candy playground for the first time.

As for the movie, I enjoyed it, but I agree that it will be hard to sustain for a full 2 seasons. I'd be more interested in seeing a TV version of "Wool", which has a similar premise, but a much larger canvas to draw on.

I enjoyed the movie. If I only I'd known I was fooling myself, and was tricked by my subconscious into liking it because it was French. But alas.

But enjoying it for what it was didn't include "wow, I really wish they'd remake this for TV". I can't imagine caring enough to watch. I mean, if everyone raves about it I won't refuse to put it in my list, but until then it's going into the instantly forgettable idea pile instead.

There are so many ideas out there that could have love poured into them, why do we have to constantly remake things that already exist instead?

Wish they'd picked Leviathan (by Ian Edington)instead: similar idea, but very different "skin".

This is a pretty terrible premise for a TV show. That doesn't exclude it from being fantastic, there are plenty of shows with stupid source material that shouldn't have worked, but did, but it makes it a lot harder lift. I don't trust TNT to do it.

It's interesting that the song in the background is the one that Willy Wonka (the Gene Wilder version) sings as the kids enter the chocolate factory/candy playground for the first time.

As for the movie, I enjoyed it, but I agree that it will be hard to sustain for a full 2 seasons. I'd be more interested in seeing a TV version of "Wool", which has a similar premise, but a much larger canvas to draw on.

I really had to work hard to suspend my disbelief to get through the movie. It's kind of like meditation, where you have to constantly work to empty your mind. In the end, I was able to do so, and did enjoy the film despite all the questions of the premise, most notably, "Why in gods name was a big ass train chosen as the very best way to survive a climate catastrophe?"

I'll give the show a chance, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope for it.

That movie was pretty weak. Everyone pretends to like it because it was a french story. Maybe it will make more sense in TV form.

Yup. I never figured what people liked about this movie. It made very little sense.

As a pure exercise of visual art and storytelling, it's a fantastic work. The metaphorical progression from the bottom to top rung of their microcosmic society mirroring the revolutionary progression to the front of the train is an amazing reimagining of the French Revolution.

However, when you start trying to examine exactly how that whole place mechanically functioned for even a second, it deflates like an especially sad balloon. I don't see how a TV show could possibly fill out a season without being forced to confront that problem head-on. Without the relentless progressive pacing and tension of a good action movie, you just can't ignore how ridiculous the entire setting is. At that point why even bother? It just sounds so fucking dumb when you start trying to describe how an eternal train in the icy tundra functions much less sustains itself.

Well, the train was the vehicle for the envisioning and retelling of the story (no pun intended). It was much easier to create the top-down divisions in society in a linear fashion, and thus make the inequities that much more stark.

Beyond that, why a TV series? The premise blows iceberg-sized chunks, there's not a lot left of the story to tell (if anything), revisiting it only muddies the clearer waters of the movie and it's not going to be that well received once the flaws can no longer be hidden by the pretty pictures and "it's French" justification.

Besides, I don't know about the rest of folks, but I'm sick to death of dystopian films. Yes, the future is going to suck in real life. Why not present a more realistic scenario as a cautionary tale to those today who might have a chance to change that future instead of using a completely unrealistic scenario of the same phenomenon to retell a story of the past?

If you want relevant dystopia, try reality in a hundred or two years. We know how it played out for the French Revolution (badly since it took them decades only to trade a king for an emperor who eventually got exiled for being very bad at playing nice with his neighbors). Maybe seeing how it's likely to play out for US could do some good for a change.

A picture is worth a thousand words, and movies run at 60 of them per second these days.

I really had to work hard to suspend my disbelief to get through the movie. It's kind of like meditation, where you have to constantly work to empty your mind. In the end, I was able to do so, and did enjoy the film despite all the questions of the premise, most notably, "Why in gods name was a big ass train chosen as the very best way to survive a climate catastrophe?"

I don't see a point in asking that question when you willingly walked into a movie about people surviving a climate catastrophe by riding a train in a loop. It's like saying "is implanting an idea in a guy's mind really the most effective way to break up a corporate monopoly" or questioning the efficacy of using magnets to squirt water as a silent propulsion system for a submarine.

I really had to work hard to suspend my disbelief to get through the movie. It's kind of like meditation, where you have to constantly work to empty your mind. In the end, I was able to do so, and did enjoy the film despite all the questions of the premise, most notably, "Why in gods name was a big ass train chosen as the very best way to survive a climate catastrophe?"

I don't see a point in asking that question when you willingly walked into a movie about people surviving a climate catastrophe by riding a train in a loop. It's like saying "is implanting an idea in a guy's mind really the most effective way to break up a corporate monopoly" or questioning the efficacy of using magnets to squirt water as a silent propulsion system for a submarine.

Fortunately, I caught it when it was on HBO, so I didn't have to shell out a wad of cash to go see it. As for the question, it was something that just seemed so basic. I have loved sci-fi of all stripes for decades, and read and watched some good, and some not so good movies, TV shows, novels and short stories. In all that time, this is not the first time I have questioned the premise of the story, but as I said, I was able to suspend my disbelief and enjoyed the film.

I really had to work hard to suspend my disbelief to get through the movie. It's kind of like meditation, where you have to constantly work to empty your mind. In the end, I was able to do so, and did enjoy the film despite all the questions of the premise, most notably, "Why in gods name was a big ass train chosen as the very best way to survive a climate catastrophe?"

I don't see a point in asking that question when you willingly walked into a movie about people surviving a climate catastrophe by riding a train in a loop. It's like saying "is implanting an idea in a guy's mind really the most effective way to break up a corporate monopoly" or questioning the efficacy of using magnets to squirt water as a silent propulsion system for a submarine.

Presumably you don't know it's "about people surviving a climate catastrophe by riding a train in a loop." when you walk in. I didn't, and walked out midway because it's so incredibly fucking stupid as a premise. I watch a lot of SF and speculative fiction so I'm used to hard to believe premises, but this is just absurd.

I really had to work hard to suspend my disbelief to get through the movie. It's kind of like meditation, where you have to constantly work to empty your mind. In the end, I was able to do so, and did enjoy the film despite all the questions of the premise, most notably, "Why in gods name was a big ass train chosen as the very best way to survive a climate catastrophe?"

I don't see a point in asking that question when you willingly walked into a movie about people surviving a climate catastrophe by riding a train in a loop. It's like saying "is implanting an idea in a guy's mind really the most effective way to break up a corporate monopoly" or questioning the efficacy of using magnets to squirt water as a silent propulsion system for a submarine.

In early 80s there was speculation about the Victor III class of Russian SSNs having a MHD drive. The Victor III had a pod on the stern plane that nobody was sure of its purpose. In particular the was a photograph of a Victor III boat with ice on the pod. In the reality it was a towed sonar array. The premise of Hunt for Red October comes from real world intelligence community concerns of the early 80s.

I enjoyed the movie. If I only I'd known I was fooling myself, and was tricked by my subconscious into liking it because it was French. But alas.

But enjoying it for what it was didn't include "wow, I really wish they'd remake this for TV". I can't imagine caring enough to watch. I mean, if everyone raves about it I won't refuse to put it in my list, but until then it's going into the instantly forgettable idea pile instead.

There are so many ideas out there that could have love poured into them, why do we have to constantly remake things that already exist instead?

Because untested ideas are a risk. Much better to invest in something we know will work. Or at least we know the limits of its potential failure.

And at least rebooting B-movies as TV shows is a change from turning them into musicals which was all the rage a few years ago. Although, I still have a treatment for Penn and Teller Get Killed - The Musical around here somewhere. (Nathan Lane as Penn Jillette, Martin Short as Teller.)